But we are going to *create* thousands of green jobs. That makes sense, right?

3:09 pm August 12, 2009

Sean wrote :

Lets just look at MI where the recession has caused the unemployment rate to jump to 15.4% and the senator from that state looks at climate change as her #1 priority. In the US, the recession has led to a very large decrease in our CO2 emmissions (even though it increased in the rest of the world where they still make things). It appears that the senator from MI has delivered on her #1 priority just has Waxman Markey will for the rest of the nation.

3:51 pm August 12, 2009

"If I sound fishy please don't turn me in" wrote :

Don't worry green jobs already make up .05 of 1% of American jobs. That should offset those 2 million unemployed.

4:25 pm August 12, 2009

Terry wrote :

Sean, as someone who has worked in wind power for a while now, I can't imagine a worse place than Michigan to develop renewable energy. Between the high cost labor, absurdly crafted RPS and overwhelming power of the utilities, I think I'll stick to Texas.

4:59 pm August 12, 2009

Andrea B wrote :

I think it's important to recognize that NAM isn’t speaking for all manufacturers. An increasing number of U.S. manufacturers and other businessess believe that clean energy and climate policies will create jobs, not the reverse. They believe this because it’s already happening in places like Indiana, Michigan and Ohio, where dozens of manufacturing firms are producing components for solar panels, wind turbines, hybrid cars, and the like. Just last week, more than 150 businesses came out in favor of clean energy legislation that U.S. Sen. Sherrod Brown is sponsoring, which would boost domestic clean energy manufacturing and ensure that new clean energy manufacturing jobs stay in America. Brown's bill is called the IMPACT Act -- Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology. Identical clean energy manufacturing language was already included in ACES -- the clean energy and climate bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives.

5:42 pm August 12, 2009

wake up wrote :

Andrea: I am sorry, but you are clueless. The cap and trade tax will be the final nail in the coffin for manufacturing in the United States. Labor costs and regulation in places like China, India, and even Mexico are a fraction of what they cost here in the US. Once the cap and tax passes, energy costs will go up significantly and the remaining manufacturers will move oversees where they can have cheap energy powered by dirty coal.

As for "green jobs", the vast majority of "green" manufacturing jobs are already in China. The only real green jobs in the US is the people who invent the techonolgy and the people who install the "green" machines. This number of people is not significant and any growth in these jobs will not be enough to offset the lost manufacturing jobs shipped oversees, not to mention all of the people employed by the coal and oil industry.

It's naive and ignorant to suggest the cap and tax will create a net postive in jobs. That is patently false.

2:13 am August 13, 2009

tom a taxpayer wrote :

The mindless destruction of productive assets mandated by the "Cash for Clunkers" is a tiny taste of the destruction the Cap and Trade whirlwind will reap. Scrapping cars years before the end of their useful life is the height of profligate and wasteful consumption. The thousands of pounds of energy-intensive, highly-processed materials and advanced engineering equipment in cars is an enormous investment based on massive inputs of energy, mining, water, labor and materials. It makes no energy, environmental or economic sense to destroy the cars engines and render the investment useless years before the end of their useful life.

By disabling the engines and scrapping perfectly good used cars, the "Cash for Clunkers" program is hurting the used cars businesses and the poor and moderate income folks who can only afford used cars. The "Cash for Clunkers" is largely benefitting the haves and hurting the have-nots.

The same arrogant, ignorant environ-mentalmidgets in Congress and the Obama administration who created "Cash for Clunkers" have created a far grander Clunker called "Cap and Trade". The Malarkey-Waxman cap-and-trade bill that passed the House of Reprehensibles is a stealth Value Added Tax (VAT). It will levy major costs on every fossil fuel component in the supply chain. It will be a balloon tax on all the essentials that the poor and middle class pay a higher percentage of their income on (food, electricity, heating, transportation, shelter, etc.).

The dream of a significant increase in wind and solar renewable energy in the U.S. will not be realized. Why? Who is the biggest obstacle to actually building significant wind or solar projects? Answer: the environmental hypocrites who protest, appeal, delay, fight and file lawsuits to prevent significant wind or solar projects. The environmental hypocrites always find some environmental effect (often a litany of effects) to prevent significant wind or solar projects. They also try to create a negative reaction in communities considering significant wind or solar projects by branding the projects as, for example, "industrial wind". The environmental hypocrites can not accept the reality that if you want renewable energy, such as wind and solar, to make a significant reduction in the Nation's fossil fuel use, there will be significant environmental effects from installing a significant renewable energy infrastructure.

Perhaps the Senate climate bill will include provisions to require environmental organizations to buy the carbon credits to offset each carbon-reducing renewable energy project stopped by the environmental organizations.

10:30 am August 13, 2009

Sam wrote :

Keith- Pretty shameful to run a "report" before you understand the underlying assumptions used to determine their numbers. This is especially shameful after the blatant lying in the Bonner fraud scandal (not to mentioned the misinformation being pushed around health care). Also, probably important to remember that NAM members are responsible to offshoring most of the manufacturing jobs we've lost in the last few decades. They're a lobby created to boost corporate profits, not protect jobs.

11:36 am August 13, 2009

Matt wrote :

Somehow, I think the EIA, which developed NEMS and uses it all the time, would know how to model the policy better than a self-interested industry group. Looking at the sources, I think it's pretty obvious who is more likely to have the better result.

12:04 pm August 13, 2009

AkaDad wrote :

Well now, if the National Association of Manufacturers says it, it must be true.

1:18 pm August 13, 2009

CTF wrote :

We still need to raise the cost of carbon based fuels even if Waxman-Markey has turned into a boondoggle. Congress needs to start looking at what this country's leading economists and scientists have been advocating since the beginning: a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

Comment

About Environmental Capital

Environmental Capital provides daily news and analysis of the shifting energy and environmental landscape. The Wall Street Journal’s Keith Johnson is the lead writer. Environmental Capital is led by Journal energy reporter Russell Gold, and includes contributions from other writers at the Journal, WSJ.com, and Dow Jones Newswires. Write us at environmentalcapital@wsj.com.